W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

RE: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:17:43 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-webapps@ >> public-webapps" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6895C7B67488C14AA23F0E079F0D7E8F13E808@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:43 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Anne completed his merge XHR and XHR2 merge and the new History section 
> includes information about the merge. As such, this is a Call for 
> Consensus to publish a new WD of XHR using the following ED (not yet 
> "pub ready") as the basis:
>
>    http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
>
> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new 
> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send 
> them to public-webapps by December 5 at the latest.
>
> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged 
> and silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal.

I missed much of the discussion on this until now because of the holiday over
the weekend in the US. As I said at TPAC, I think continuing only with XHR2
in this exceptional circumstance is the right move provided the group doesn't
make a habit of dropping things because there's a newer shiny version.

With that in mind, I'd like to see the XHR1 document published as a WG Note.
I received a question just this morning asking about the expected behaviour for
an XHR implementation in a pre-CORS environment. While not perfect, the XHR1
document is a reasonably good record of the state of implementations prior to
CORS and I'm reluctant to lose that information or to have to rely on trying to
find a CR publication that doesn't even appear in the history of the new
document.

Secondly, at least within Microsoft and the web developers that I talk to,
the notion of XHR L2 is one that they're familiar with and understood to be
distinct from the original. Could we not continue to publish into TR space
using the "2" suffix?

Thanks,

Adrian.
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 01:18:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:49 GMT